Shri. Veeresh S/O Murigeppa ... vs Smt. Geeta S/O Veeresh ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 9028 Kant

                            -1-




                                   RPFC No. 100070 of 2021




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 17th DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                         BEFORE
        THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
    REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100070 OF 2021 (-)

BETWEEN:

    SHRI. VEERESH S/O MURIGEPPA SHEEPARAMATTI
    AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE JOB,
    R/O. H. NO. 781/50, PANCHAKSHARI NAGAR,
    OPPOSITE ANAND MARG SCHOOL,
    NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
    DIST. DHARWAD-580025

                                                ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

    SMT. GEETA S/O. VEERESH SHEEPARAMATTI
    AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD,
    R/O. C/O. M.S MUDAKATTI,
    H.NO. LIG-274, 11TH CROSS,
    NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI,
    DIST. DHARWAD,-580025



                                              ...RESPONDENT

(SRI. ANJANEYA M., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT)

      THIS RPFC FILED UNDER SECTION 19 (4) OF THE FAMILY
COURT ACT, 1984, AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DTD
13.03.2020 IN CRL.MISC. NO.67/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE
                                 -2-




                                       RPFC No. 100070 of 2021


PRINCIPAL JUDGE, FAMILY COURT, HUBBALLI, PARTLY ALLOWING
THE PETITION FILED UNDER SEC.125 OF CR.P.C.
     THIS RPFC COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                               ORDER

This Revision Petition is filed by the respondent, in

Crl. Misc. No.67/2019 on the file of the Principal Judge,

Family Court, Hubballi, challenging the order dated

13.03.2020, allowing the petition in part.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that, the

marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was

solemnized on 03.02.2017 at Hubballi and thereafter, the

petitioner-wife was residing at the matrimonial home for

few days, however, on account of not tolerating the

inhumane treatment meted out by her as the respondent-

husband and his family members were pestering the

petitioner-wife to get dowry and accordingly, the

petitioner-wife left the matrimonial home and residing at

her parents house.

RPFC No. 100070 of 2021

3. It is the case of the petitioner that, on the

earlier occasion also, complaint was lodged before the

Women Police Station, Hubballi, and the respondent-

husband was called and he was advised to lead a happy

married life, by the police, however, the respondent-

husband continued to ill-treat the husband and

accordingly, it is the case of the petitioner that, it is very

difficult for her to take care of her livelihood and

accordingly, the petitioner-wife filed Crl. Misc. No.67/2019

on the file of the Family Court, seeking maintenance.

4. The respondent was served, however, not

represented before the Family Court, accordingly, the

respondent-husband was placed ex-parte.

5. In order to establish her case, the petitioner-

wife was examined as P.W.1 and produced Ex.P.1 to

Ex.P.3 and same were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.3. The

Family Court after considering the material on record and

taking into account the fact that, the respondent-husband

was working as a Auditor in the Manipurum Finance

RPFC No. 100070 of 2021

Limited and earning Rs.25,000/- per month, ordered for

payment of maintenance of Rs.7,000/- per month to the

petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the respondent-

husband has filed this petition.

6. Heard Sri. Shivaprasad Patil, learned counsel

for the petitioner and Sri. Anjaneya M. learned counsel for

the respondent.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended

that, the order passed by the Family Court is ex-parte and

an opportunity be provided to the respondent-husband to

prove his case. He further argued that, the respondent-

husband has no source of income to pay the maintenance

and accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.

8. Per contra, Sri. Anjaneya M. Learned counsel

appearing for the respondent sought to justify the

impugned order passed by the Family Court and argued

that, the petitioner herein-husband, was deliberately

remained absent from appearing before the Family Court

RPFC No. 100070 of 2021

and therefore he argued that, no interference be made

insofar as the impugned order, passed by the Family

Court.

9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the parties and taking into consideration the finding

recorded by the Family Court, wherein, it is not in dispute

that the marriage between the petitioner and the

respondent was solemnized on 03.02.2017 at Hubballi and

thereafter, the petitioner-wife left the matrimonial home

having not tolerated the inhumane treatment meted out

by her as stated by her in the claim petition.

10. However, a perusal of the impugned order

would go to show that, the petitioner herein has not

represented before the Family Court. It is also the case of

the petitioner-herein that he has no means to pay the

maintenance. However, the learned counsel appearing for

the respondent herein argued that the petitioner herein is

having a monthly salary of Rs.25,000/- as he is working as

a Auditor at Manipurum Finance Limited and therefore, in

RPFC No. 100070 of 2021

order to provide an opportunity to the petitioner herein to

urge his grounds before the Family Court, I am of the view

that, it is a fit case to remand the matter to Family Court

for fresh consideration, taking into account the arguments

advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

11. However, it is made clear that, as the petitioner

herein has not represented before the Family Court, I am

of the view that, the payment of Rs.7,000/- per month by

the Family Court shall be continued to be payable to

respondent herein - wife, till the conclusion of the

proceedings before the Family court in Crl. Misc.

No.67/2019 and with these observations, the following

order is passed:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed in part.

(ii) The order dated 13.03.2020 in Crl.

Misc. No.67/2019 on the file of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi, is set aside and remanded the matter to the Family Court for fresh consideration after

RPFC No. 100070 of 2021

affording a reasonable opportunity to both the sides.

(iii) It is also made clear that, till the conclusion of the proceedings in Crl. Misc. No.67/2019, the petitioner herein- husband shall pay Rs.7,000/- per month to the respondent-wife to take care of her livelihood.

(iv) In view of the fact that the parties are represented through their counsel, the parties are directed to appear before the Family Court on 06.07.2022 without waiting for notice from the Family Court, to avoid further delay in the matter.

(v) Learned counsel for the respondent- wife is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited if any, before this Court.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SVH